@okie,
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I don't want to go to Palau either, cyclops. But if Obama gets his National Security Force, you will probably sign up and help him send all conservatives to a re-education camp at Gitmo or someplace like it. That would be no surprise at all.
What makes you think I would do something like that? Do you honestly believe that of me, and other Liberals - that we're looking to oppress you out of existence?
I only ask, b/c that's a horrible thing to accuse someone of wanting to do. A little twisted on your part.
Cycloptichorn
Well, thanks for the non-combative answer. I did make a bold statement. I do not know you at all, but what I do know here on this forum, I perceive you as probably a decent person, but you have totally bought into the leftist agenda in this country. As a political movement, I honestly do very much think it is a very dangerous movement, far more dangerous than anything coming from the right. The reasons I believe that are many, but I just sum it up by saying the left is very angry, they want what others have, and they will go to almost any lengths to obtain power and the things they want, and once that power is obtained, they are not going to give it up easy.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the "leftist agenda in this country."
Again, there is no support for your bold statement implying that the Obama administration's goal is to oppress conservatives out of existence. You offer nothing other than a deluded Henny-penny tale of a falling sky. You are engaged in fear mongering, plain and simple.
You say the "left" is angry. The truth, however, is that the entire country--left, right, middle, et al., is angry with the sorry state of our union after many years of mismanagement which occurred while "conservative" Republicans were in control of the government.
Your accusation that those on the left "want what others have" lacks substance and meaning. What are you trying to say? What are these unnamed things that allegedly belong exclusively to the right that you believe the left is trying to take away? Surely you're not suggesting that governmental "power" belongs exclusively to right wing conservative Republicans, are you?
What are you saying when you allege that those on the left will go to almost any length to obtain power and the things they want? Don't you understand that a nationwide election was held and that Democrats won the electoral support of the majority of the people? Those who are elected to office wield the power of the government. Power in the government does not belong exclusively to those who identify themselves as being on the right.
Your rant of woe merely shows that you're the one who is displaying anger because the party that you support no longer occupies majority status within our governmental framework. Thus, you resort to fear mongering by making vague and unspecified claims of danger.
Quote:Obama came along and knew how to play into this mindset and fool enough people with his mantra of change. Remember, leftists believe in big government and a very powerful government, and the rights of individuals are to be trampled at the expense of their perceived good of the whole.
There is no evidence that Obama is the "left wing extremist" that you have deluded yourself into believing. On the contrary, the evidence thus far demonstrates that Obama is mostly a centrist. In fact, he leans right on many issues and has continued many of the Republican policies that outraged many people from all spectrums of the political landscape. I am personally disappointed in the Obama administration's Department of Justice that continues to vigorously defend Bush's surveillance policies, torture policies, detention policies, etc.
You have deluded yourself concerning the mindset of people you identify as leftists. The big government vs. small government dichotomy is simply partisan rhetoric. All Americans want an effective government that actually accomplishes the goals that justify its existence. For instance, our infrastructure is decaying. Individual citizens cannot inspect roads, bridges, and dams and repair or replace the ones that threaten our safety. Accordingly, the government is in charge of our infrastructure. When your loved one is killed by driving on a 50-year-old bridge that collapses into a river, or when your niece's entire family is wiped out by a flash flood caused by a failed dam, then you cry, "Where is my government? Why didn't the government maintain that bridge or replace that dam?" You will decry the failings of government, yet you are unwilling to support or pay for a government that can effectively do the many jobs that it must do on our behalf.
Taking care of our infrastructure requires tons of people on the government payroll and tons of tax dollars. That's merely one public responsibility out of the many responsibilities that we place on our government. Shrinking the size of government simply for the sake of doing so doesn't serve our interests when it makes our government incapable of doing its intended job. The costly business of government--by its very nature--in unprofitable, but necessary.
The private sector is motivated by profit--not the welfare of the nation's citizens. If the private sector is not regulated by the government, then the general welfare of our citizens is placed in jeopardy and is subject to the whims of a self-interested aristocracy. But, you and other brainwashed conservatives believe that regulating the private sector violates individual freedom. Thus you spout the false mantra designed by the aristocracy to demonize those who want to regulate commerce for the public good: "rights of individuals are to be trampled at the expense of their perceived good of the whole."
You unquestionably buy the profit-motivated agenda of "conservative" and Republican aristocrats who have brain washed you to believe that unfettered free enterprise is good and government regulation is bad. However, when your grandchild dies from lead poisoning because he sucked on a toy that was adorned with lead-based paint, then you cry, "Where is my government? Why didn't the government protect my grandchild?" When you sue the manufacturer for making an unsafe toy and causing the wrongful death of your grandchild, you may not be entitled to any compensation because you previously carried the banner of tort reform for the interests of big business. After all, making business responsible in our civil courts for the harm it causes to individuals is bad for business and cuts into profits.
You carry the water for the right wing agenda: Suing business is bad; tort reform good! Deregulation is good; compensatory and punitive damages are bad! All those who believe in individual freedom should support government deregulation and caps on compensatory damages and the abolition of "punitive damages" so that big business can make cheap, uninspected, unsafe products for public consumption and reap huge profits without any liability to those whom big business kills, maims, or harms in any way!
Although you claim that the "right" or conservatives or Republicans are the champions of individual rights, we see very little evidence to substantiate the claim. You fight the battle for the "rights" of business to make enormous profit without regulation or any accountability to the people while you simultaneously fight to oppress people whom you disfavor because of the color of their skin, their nationality, their faith, their sexual orientation, their reproductive choices, or their impoverished status. You are one of many gullible souls who allow the right wing politicians to control you through wedge issues that make you feel morally superior to those on the left.
You are deluding yourself if you truly believe you're a champion of individual rights. You're not. History has proven over and over again that it has been the very people whom you label as "dangerous" -- those on the left -- are the ones who have fought and have won the hard battles for civil rights.
Quote:I have been thinking about Obama's security force for the past few days since I recalled it. Why would Obama want a National Security Force that is "just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded as the military?" Is the man goofy? Did I make that up? No, he said it, he must believe it. Does he know how much we spend on the military and the true capability of it? Again, is this man goofy? Is he deranged? I have to question the sanity of anyone that would propose such a thing. Yes, I have finally been compelled to come to the conclusion I did not want to believe, I think Obama truly is a very very dangerous man, and I sincerely hope for the good of this country we can get rid of him next election, and I sincerely hope we survive it until then. If he screws up bad enough, maybe he could be impeached, but there is no sentiment for that now.
You asked my honest opinion. I gave it to you. I don't think you believe you are that dangerous, and you aren't, but you are supporting a very dangerous movement that could end up in very troubled waters. That is my honest opinion. I hope my fears are exaggerated, perhaps they are, but some things really bug me, the security force is one.
You are misrepresenting Obama's words. He was voicing his opinion that the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, and the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia are just as important to the future of our country as the soldier at Fort Carson. Obama stated his opinion that the burdens of service to our country should not fall exclusively on the backs of our military, but should be shared by all citizens. You have been brainwashed to believe that Obama's opinion, shared by almost everyone in this country, is dangerous. And you have the audacity to question Obama's sanity?
Quote: And really, Obama is not a very open person. I do not feel he is giving us his true self when he presents himself to us. As a personality, at first I found him likable, but as time progesses, he is a bit creepy in terms of his agenda and the way he cloaks everything he does. I hope I am totally wrong. And even if I am right, I am still betting the system, the checks and balances will prevent him from doing everything he wants to do. I certainly hope so.
Your vague "boogey man is scary" routine was rejected by the electorate. When are you going to come up with new material? Please try to present something that contains substance.